State Bank Of India vs Samarendra Kishore Endow

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1994 Supreme(SC) 72

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.L.Hansaria : B.P.Jeevan Reddy
State Bank Of India
Versus
Samarendra Kishore Endow
Case No. : 392 of 1994
Date of Decision : 1/18/94
Advocates Appeared: Srivastava A.K. : Vasudev Kailash : Watii Hemantika

Advocates:
A.K.SRIVASTAVA, HEMANTIKA VATII, KAILASH VASUDEV

Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 311 – Circumstances evidence – Jurisdiction - On evidence even if some of it is found - Respondent was appointed as a cashier in appellant bank in - He was promoted to Officer Grade-11 and then to Grade-1 - While he was working at Branch in Nagaland, he was promoted to the rank of Branch Manager and was transferred to Branch in the State of Tripura appellant joined at and claimed certain amount by way of reimbursement for the expenses incurred by him in shifting his belongings and other articles to - An inquiry was made into the correctness of the receipts and other documents produced by him in that connection and he was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry on five charges – Held, It would perhaps be appropriate to mention at this stage that there are certain observations in Union of India Patel which, at first look appear to say that the court can interfere where the penalty imposed is "arbitrary or grossly excessive or out of all proportion to the offence committed or not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case or the requirements of that particular government service - It must however be remembered that Patel dealt with cases arising under proviso (a) to Article 311 Constitution Patel overruled the earlier decision of this court in - While holding that no notice need be given before imposing the penalty in a case dealt with under the said proviso, the court held that if a disproportionate or harsh punishment is imposed by the disciplinary authority, it can be corrected either by the appellate court or by the High court. These observations are not relevant to cases of penalty imposed after regular inquiry. Indeed this is how the said a observations have been understood in Parma Nanda" referred to above same comment holds with respect to the decision in Shankar DOS v. Union of India which too was a case arising under proviso to Article 311 - Now coming to the facts of this case it would appear that the main charge against the respondent is putting forward a false claim for reimbursement of expenditure incurred for transporting his belongings from to - So far as charge 5 is concerned there is no finding that account become irregular or that any loss was incurred by bank on account of irregularity committed by the respondent - In circumstances it may be that punishment of removal imposed upon the respondent is harsh but this is a matter which Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority should consider and not High court or Administrative tribunal - In our opinion proper course to be adopted in such situations would be to send the matter either to the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to impose appropriate punishment - Appeal is allowed

Judgement Key Points

Respondent appointed as cashier in State Bank of India in 1968, promoted to Officer Grade-II, then Grade-I, then Branch Manager at Amarpur Branch, Tripura after transfer from Phek Branch, Nagaland in January 1981. (!) [1000301440001][1000301440002]
Respondent submitted TA bill of Rs. 12,194.80 for transfer, including claims for truck hire (Rs. 9,500), loading/unloading (Rs. 120), and list of 19 packages of household goods. [1000301440001] (!) (!) (!)
Charge I: Submitted false receipt for Rs. 9,500 truck hire from M/s Balram Hariram, neither hired full truck nor spent amount, violating Rule 32(4). (!)
Charge II: False receipts for Rs. 60 each for loading/unloading from Shri Ram Prasad, violating Rule 32(4). (!)
Charge III: Furnished inflated list of 19 packages when only 8 transported, to derive undue benefit, violating Rule 32(4). (!)
Charge IV: Disproportionate assets to known income sources at Phek Branch, violating Rule 32(4). (!)
Charge V: Disbursed construction loan to Shri Asong Snock (Rs. 90,000 on 7/5/1981, Rs. 10,000 on 10/5/1981) without verifying construction progress per Regional Office instructions, violating Rules 32(1), 32(4). (!)
Inquiry Officer found all five charges proved; Disciplinary Authority agreed on Charges I, II, III, V (disagreed on IV), imposed penalty of removal; Appellate Authority dismissed appeal. [1000301440002]
High Court allowed writ: (1) non-supply of Inquiry Officer's report vitiated punishment; (2) appellate order non-speaking, violating Rule 51(2); (3) findings on Charges I-III, V perverse/no evidence. [1000301440002][1000301440003]
Non-supply of Inquiry Officer's report not vitiating as punishment order pre-20/11/1990. [1000301440003][1000301440004]
Charge I finding supported: contradictory receipts (Rs. 9,500 then Rs. 2,755), transporter's evidence disbelieved, no movement on represented dates per documents (P.Ex-23, P.Ex-10,9); not "no evidence." [1000301440004][1000301440005]
Charge II finding supported: discrepancies in dates, non-examination of Ram Prasad (not main reason he was fictitious), loading/unloading not on mentioned dates. [1000301440005][1000301440006]
Charge III: Similar to II; finding not "no movement" but not on assigned dates. [1000301440006][1000301440007]
Charge V finding supported: Loan terms (Ex.20) required phased disbursement verifying prior utilization/progress; entire amount released in 3 days without verification. [1000301440007][1000301440008]
High Court judgment set aside; findings not perverse, based on some evidence. [1000301440008][1000301440009]
Courts/Tribunals under Art.226 or Administrative Tribunals Act have judicial review jurisdiction, not appellate: cannot re-appreciate evidence if some legal evidence supports findings reasonably; cannot substitute own findings. [1000301440010] (!) [1000301440011] (!) (!)
Tribunal/High Court cannot interfere with penalty quantum if inquiry proper, natural justice followed, findings based on evidence (even if irrelevant/extraneous parts); penalty not justiciable unless mala fide/arbitrary; within Disciplinary/Appellate Authority's exclusive domain. [1000301440010][1000301440011] (!) (!) (!) [1000301440012]
Main charge: false TA claim; Charge V: no finding of irregularity/loss to bank; removal possibly harsh, but for Disciplinary/Appellate Authority, not Court/Tribunal. [1000301440013][1000301440014]
Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside; Appellate Authority to reconsider lesser punishment within 4 months. [1000301440014]

(1) THIS appeal is preferred by the State Bank of India against the decision of the Gauhati High court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent.

(2) THE respondent was appointed as a cashier in the appellant bank in the year 1968. He was promoted to Officer Grade-11 and then to Grade-1. While he was working at Phek Branch in Nagaland, he was promoted to the rank of Branch Manager and was transferred to Amarpur Branch in the State of Tripura in January 1981. The appellant joined at Amarpur and claimed certain amount by way of reimbursement for the expenses incurred by him in shifting his belongings and other articles to Amarpur from Phek. An inquiry was made into the correctness of the receipts and other documents produced by him in that connection (and into some other alleged irregularities committed by him) and he was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry on five charges. The charges read as follows:

"CHARGE 1 That on 10/02/1982, you submitted a Travelling Allowance Bill for Rs. 12,194.80 in connection with your permanent transfer from Phek Branch to Amarpur Branch. In the said bill you make a claim of Rs. 9,500.00 being the hiring charges incurred by you for a full truck and in support of your claim you submitted a false money receipt dated 9/01/1982 for Rs. 9,500.00 obtained from M/s Balram Hariram, Church Road, Dimapur, whereas you neither engaged a full truck nor spent Rs. 9,500.00 for the transport of household goods. By your above act you failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and have violated Rule 32(4 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules.

CHARGE II That in your Travelling Allowance Bill for Rs. 12,194.80 dated 10/02/1982 you made another claim for Rs. 120.00 supported by two false separate money receipts dated 9/02/1982 for Rs. 60.00 each obtained from one Shri Ram Prasad being the loading and unloading charges incurred for household goods at Phek and Amarpur respectively. By your above act again you have failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and violated Rule 32(4 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules.

CHARGE III That along with the Travelling Allowance Bill for Rs. 12,194.80 dated 10/02/1982 you furnished a list of 19 packages of household items claimed to have been transported from Phek to Amarpur whereas only 8 packages of household goods were transported. Thus you knowingly furnished an inflated list of goods transported with an intention to derive undue pecuniary benefit and thereby infringed Rule 32(4 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules.

CHARGE IV That during the period of your posting at our Phek Branch your S.B. Account thereat showed frequent deposits by means of cash as well as transfer transactions. These deposits and various T.D. Rs" S.T.D. Rs. and other assets acquired as detailed in the Statement of Allegation enclosed herewith, indicate that you were having assets disproportionate to your known sources of income the fact which reflect adversely on your conduct with is unbecoming of a bank official and thus you infringed Rule 32(4 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules.

CHARGE V That while you were holding temporary charge of the Phek Branch you disbursed a construction loan to Shri Asong Snock in two instalments i.e. Rs. 90,000.00 on 7/05/1981 i.e. as soon as you received the sanction from Regional Office and Rs. 10,000.00 on 10/05/1981, without taking into account the progress of the construction of the building as instructed by Regional Office. The said loan was not utilised for the construction of the building and as a result of which the account had become irregular. Thus you have infringed Rules 32(1, 32(4 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules."

(3) AN Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority (the Chief General Manager) wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1994 Supreme(SC) 72

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAB.L.Hansaria : B.P.Jeevan ReddyState Bank Of IndiaVersusSamarendra Kishore EndowCase No. : 392 of 1994Date of Decision : 1/18/94Advocates Appeared: Srivastava A.K. : Vasudev Kailash : Watii Hemantika

Cases Referred (11)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.L.Hansaria : B.P.Jeevan Reddy
State Bank Of India
Versus
Samarendra Kishore Endow
Case No. : 392 of 1994
Date of Decision : 1/18/94
Advocates Appeared: Srivastava A.K. : Vasudev Kailash : Watii Hemantika